Students Held Hostage Through Creative Self-Expression

Okay, I’ve stayed silent on this issue long enough.

I read this article in today’s NY Times, about employers viewing student’s social networking pages (MySpace and Facebook obviously being the most common) and rejecting applicants based on what they found there, and I’ve been reminded the kind of anger this sort of thing stirs in me.

The most important debate should (but hasn’t) center around the issue that every single newspaper seems to take at face value (they certainly don’t question it in their articles): are these sites public or private?  Now, with MySpace, everyone can see your profile, so assume that I’m only talking about Facebook profiles unless otherwise mentioned.

Allow me to provide some in-text examples.  When discussing questionable photos depicting alcohol and drug use, one employer said that “I was just shocked by the amount of stuff that she was willing to publicly display.”  Another employer commented that “it has its place, but it's moving from a fraternity or sorority living room. It's now in a public arena.”  One Microsoft employee noted that “for the first time ever, you suddenly have very public information about almost any candidate.”  Each of these people makes the assumption that my Facebook profile is in the public domain.  I contend that it is not.

First, unlike MySpace, companies must use subversive and shady tactics in order to obtain this data.  The article reports that “Employees who are recent graduates often retain their college e-mail addresses, which enables them to see pages. Sometimes, too, companies ask college students working as interns to perform online background checks.”  I’m sure that companies will have many defenses for this tactic.  Allow me to offer an analogy that puts this despicable action in some context. 

When at work, an employee is an agent for his or her company, who happens to have a Facebook account.  However, when on Facebook, that employee is a current/former college student with a Facebook account, who happens to work for his or her company.  What’s the difference?  Should a restaurant manager use their restaurant supply discount card for personal purchases?  Should a hedge fund analyst accept an invitation for dinner from a banker who operates in a different industry because he’s hungry and wants a nice glass of wine?  My point is, when using that discount card or accepting that dinner, you are implying that you are an agent of your company, even though, in that instance, you’re actually just someone who is hungry and either wants high-quality kitchenware, or a free meal.  Likewise, when using Facebook, there is an implicit assumption that you are an agent of yourself.  It is a personal site, and it is assumed that college students/alumni use it to connect with other college students/alumni.  While there exists no legal line that these companies are crossing, I argue that these companies cross a moral line.

I think that the worst part of all this is the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of these companies.  According to Forbes.com, “about a quarter of all chief executives on the Forbes Super 500 list of America's largest corporations were members of college fraternities.”  So you’re telling me that none of these CEOs ever had a beer in college?  They never smoked a joint during the late 60’s?  They never had promiscuous sex?  Really?  You’re trying to tell me that?  I think we all know that this is an obvious and blatant lie.  One of the greatest benefits of these sites is the ability to unleash the trapped creativity and self-expression of the nation’s teenagers.  We use these sites to express who we are, to learn about our friends, and to interact with our peers.  Don’t abuse our newfound ability to engage in creative self-expression by holding us hostage with it.  It is not yours.  It is ours.

As a side note, who are these traitors, spies, rats, scoundrels, double-agents, and scally-wags who willingly turn on their fellow classmates?  Don’t hide behind the I-don’t-want-to-lose-my-job excuse, because I think its quite obvious that you can’t be fired for not logging onto a site that only you personally have access to, to gain information that your employer otherwise could not see.  You are just as responsible as these employers are, and frankly you should be ashamed of what you’re willing to do and who you’re willing to sell it to kiss up to your boss.

If anyone has any idea for some kind of grassroots campaign or boycott, I’m all ears.  This is the kind of thing the blogosphere loves to pick up on, and I know we could gain momentum quickly with a proper strategy.  Thoughts?

Comments

[Dan Marques]

Hmm...another reason why entrepreneurship is the way to go!

This is a serious issue that will only continue. Maybe try something like the Save The Net campaign for Net Neutrality...websites, blog buttons, press releates, etc.